Comparison of Fracture Resistance for Chairside CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Crowns and Overlays with Different Designs.

Abstract

To determine the fracture resistance of chairside computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) lithium disilicate full coverage crowns and two different designs of overlay restorations for premolars. CAD/CAM lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD for CEREC/HT A1 C14, Ivoclar Vivadent) restorations (15 specimens/group) with 1.5 mm occlusal thickness and 1.0 mm chamfer were designed and fabricated with a chairside CAD/CAM system (CEREC, Dentsply Sirona). The restorations were prepared in three different designs: (1) full coverage crowns, (2) overlays with the margin located 2 mm above the gingiva, and (3) overlays with the margin located 4 mm above the gingiva. Restorations were cemented using conventional resin luting cement (Multilink, Ivoclar Vivadent) with primer system (Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent) to resin printed dies, load cycled (2,000,000 load cycles at 1 Hz with 275 N force), and then finally loaded with a steel indenter until failure. Scanning electron microscopy observations of fractured surfaces were also conducted. Group results were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance, and the medians were evaluated independently with Kruskal-Wallis. The fracture force of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate restorations was significantly different (p < 0.001) depending on the design of the restoration. Full coverage crowns showed significantly higher force to fracture (1018.8 N) than both types of overlays (p = 0.002 for overlay 2.0 mm and p < 0.001 for overlay 4.0 mm above gingiva). Among the two overlays, the restoration with the margin located 2 mm above the gingiva showed significantly higher fracture force (813.8 N) than the overlay with margin at 4 mm above the gingiva (436.1 N; p < 0.001). The fracture appearance of the crowns was much more complex than that of the overlay restorations. Full coverage chairside CAD/CAM lithium disilicate premolar crown showed higher fracture resistance than overlay restorations. Overlays with the margin located 2 mm above the margin demonstrated higher resistance than those with the margin located 4 mm above the gingiva.